Another Federal Court Denies Application To Seal Arbitration Award

Nearly every US reinsurance arbitration includes a Confidentiality Agreement. The vast majority of those confidentiality agreements are based on the ARIAS"U.S. Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order model form. Most confidentiality agreements provide that disclosure may be made “as is necessary in connection with court proceedings relating to any aspect of the arbitration, including but not limited to motions to confirm, modify, vacate or enforce an award issued in this arbitration.” Most also provide that “[i]n connection with any disclosures pursuant to [court proceedings], the parties agree, subject to court approval, that all submissions of Arbitration Information to a court shall be sealed and/or redacted so as to limit disclosure of Arbitration Information.” So how well do these provisions hold up in court when a motion to seal is made?

In TIG Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., No. 19 Civ. 10238 (PAE), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205120 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2019), the court addressed an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award and an unopposed motion to seal the arbitration award and redact sections of the petition. The court, in some detail, went through the confirmation analysis (and granted confirmation) and the request to seal. Following a long line of cases in the New York federal courts (the court cited 7 cases), the court denied the motion to seal and ordered the parties to file unredacted copies of the award and petition.

So what did the court think of the confidentiality agreement that the parties relied upon as the basis for the motion to seal? Not much. First, said the court, the confidentiality agreement is not binding on the court. Moreover...